Indiana Shut Down Its Rural Planned Parenthood Clinics And Got An HIV Outbreak

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Digital_Reality


... call me a crazy conservative who has a radically dangerous train of thought because I don't agree with...

A crazy conservative yesterday, today you are a hateful extremist.

Tomorrow, you will be the enemy.

Plan accordingly.

Sad but true friend.

a reply to: Digital_Reality


Here is a post from a few minutes ago referencing the owners of a pizzaria who publically stated that they would not cater a gay wedding:

originally posted by: Annee

I hope this pizza shop gets what they deserve.

The issue is practically irrelevant - the remarkable end of this line of thinking is punishment for thought.

Already occurring in Europe and Canada.

Coming soon to a formerly constitutional republic near you.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Your last bit is completely untrue. I said very clearly that Dr, Cooke could make better use of the funding and, since he was the guy in the trenches all along, not the PP executive who wants more taxpayer dollars, that would be logical.

Nowhere have I said that there should not be preventative services. What I did do is point out that the narrative that planned parenting not getting all the funds they wanted was the cause was false.

Planned parenthood is a lobbying organization that depends on the narrative that they are the only one who does the job to keep the taxpayer gravy train flowing and this entire episode is an example of it. They use taxpayer funds to both keep their execs well-heeled and to lobby us for more funds.

The executives are irrelevant. Again they make the standard amount of money that most executives make in NPO's. The fact is that the government cut the funding off and the clinic was forced to shut down. This isn't a matter of PP not getting the funding they wanted. It's a matter of PP not getting any money at all. The clinic shutdown then HIV cases went up.

The better question is, why do you only want one clinic devoted to helping these people in the area? If we assume that Dr. Cooke's clinic has been in operation the same time that the PP clinic was in operation, then the PP clinic got shutdown, then we can reasonably argue that both clinics were putting in work to keep HIV cases down. Gutting the total number of clinics in the area down to one, is a bad idea. It over works the clinic and causes them to provide shoddy results.

We need MORE clinics, not less.

Dr Cooke could have done much more with a fraction of the funds that were cut from PP and he wouldn't have given himself a quarter million dollar salary doing it.

You don't know what Dr. Cooke would or wouldn't do with that funding. I'm sure that being a doctor, Cooke isn't having too much trouble making ends meet. Then being in charge of a free clinic that relies on government assistance, he probably gets a decent kick back for that as well.

I'm sure that much of that funding would go to helping people, but you are being naive if you think that Cooke wouldn't use some of that money to cover payroll costs (including his own).

You seem to want to keep throwing money down the PP hole for what reason? They are not the only game in town obviously. Is it because PP is such an icon, such a sacred cow of the left?

I want to put money towards as many clinics helping as many people as possible. PP has a national presence and their methods are proven to work. I see no reason to exclude them from the area.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If I run a red light, and crash into a vehicle, I pay the price of my actions.

If someone does drugs, they pay the price for their actions.

That is an apples to oranges comparison. Getting into a car accident is a one off thing generally. Most people don't crash a car every day of their lives. Doing drugs becomes a habit that sucks your willpower out of you. It is a COMPLETELY different situation here.

Both of which are poor choices. Both can get the bleeding heart viewpoint of bad education this...or poor environment that. None of which are valid excuses.

Not really... Running a red light is a traffic law violation and endangers others. It's hard to be sympathetic to such actions. Drug use is a personal problem that is made worse when the drugs alter the chemistry in your brain to seek more drugs out no matter what.

Just because someone didn't graduate HS doesn't then lead them to drug use. Nor is it any sort of valid defense for their actions.

It may not lead to it, but it certainly doesn't help their situation.
Drug, Alcohol Abuse More Likely Among High School Dropouts
Drug Abuse More Likely Among High School Dropouts (different source than first one)
THE SUBSTANCE USE–DROPOUT CONNECTION

Society is not responsible for people's bad choices.

And yes, it does in fact all boil down to laziness and free stuff.

No it doesn't. Helping people over come their problems has nothing to do with laziness or free stuff. There are MANY drug addicts right now who would want nothing more than to quit their habit but can't because they don't have the willpower and resources to accomplish this.

And please show me where the definition of empathy has been changed from relating to someone's plight to now "helping" them....via free crap.

Here is my "help"...they fail until they stop making bad choices. Providing condoms does not help stop them making bad choices. Providing free needles and tests does not help them stop making bad choices.

And I didn't say they are scum for choosing to use drugs. YOU used that statement.

You heavily insinuate such opinions when you say words like the above two paragraphs. Drug abuse isn't something you just "get over".

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you want to be honest about this whole thing, it boils down to simply this, if using your theory.

HIV rates went up as Handouts went down.
And to when you boil it down even further to a yummy reduction, it amounts to laziness. People are too lazy to take care of themselves and look for others to provide free crap and tell them what to do.

So they should all just be killed? Is that what you're saying? A bullet to the head, and charge the family for the execution? Prevention is much cheaper than treatment.

originally posted by: Aazadan
So they should all just be killed? Is that what you're saying? A bullet to the head, and charge the family for the execution? Prevention is much cheaper than treatment.

I cannot help but notice that when the conversation gets to this point...cue the crickets.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you want to be honest about this whole thing, it boils down to simply this, if using your theory.

HIV rates went up as Handouts went down.
And to when you boil it down even further to a yummy reduction, it amounts to laziness. People are too lazy to take care of themselves and look for others to provide free crap and tell them what to do.

So they should all just be killed? Is that what you're saying? A bullet to the head, and charge the family for the execution? Prevention is much cheaper than treatment.

I love how these people jump straight to ridiculous things like this to try and prove their point.

No, nobody wants to just bull doze over all of the poor sick IV users. We want them to get better. We want them to be a productive part of society. We need them to be productive because we are all in this together. But you cannot fix this with free needles, HIV tests and abortions. That is only masking the issue just like what the drug users are doing by using drugs.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Aazadan
So they should all just be killed? Is that what you're saying? A bullet to the head, and charge the family for the execution? Prevention is much cheaper than treatment.

I cannot help but notice that when the conversation gets to this point...cue the crickets.

Bringing up an extreme over exaggeration does not validate your point. Its crickets because we all know its a sad situation and no one knows what to do. We just know we feel strongly about what not to do.

a reply to: Digital_Reality

How would you help them? Put them in jail?

By the way, here is a break down of the services Planned Parenthood provides.
www.plannedparenthood.org...
I find it a TOUGH argument to argue that all of those services are evil.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Your last bit is completely untrue. I said very clearly that Dr, Cooke could make better use of the funding and, since he was the guy in the trenches all along, not the PP executive who wants more taxpayer dollars, that would be logical.

Nowhere have I said that there should not be preventative services. What I did do is point out that the narrative that planned parenting not getting all the funds they wanted was the cause was false.

Planned parenthood is a lobbying organization that depends on the narrative that they are the only one who does the job to keep the taxpayer gravy train flowing and this entire episode is an example of it. They use taxpayer funds to both keep their execs well-heeled and to lobby us for more funds.

The executives are irrelevant. Again they make the standard amount of money that most executives make in NPO's. The fact is that the government cut the funding off and the clinic was forced to shut down. This isn't a matter of PP not getting the funding they wanted. It's a matter of PP not getting any money at all. The clinic shutdown then HIV cases went up.

The better question is, why do you only want one clinic devoted to helping these people in the area? If we assume that Dr. Cooke's clinic has been in operation the same time that the PP clinic was in operation, then the PP clinic got shutdown, then we can reasonably argue that both clinics were putting in work to keep HIV cases down. Gutting the total number of clinics in the area down to one, is a bad idea. It over works the clinic and causes them to provide shoddy results.

We need MORE clinics, not less.

Dr Cooke could have done much more with a fraction of the funds that were cut from PP and he wouldn't have given himself a quarter million dollar salary doing it.

You don't know what Dr. Cooke would or wouldn't do with that funding. I'm sure that being a doctor, Cooke isn't having too much trouble making ends meet. Then being in charge of a free clinic that relies on government assistance, he probably gets a decent kick back for that as well.

I'm sure that much of that funding would go to helping people, but you are being naive if you think that Cooke wouldn't use some of that money to cover payroll costs (including his own).

You seem to want to keep throwing money down the PP hole for what reason? They are not the only game in town obviously. Is it because PP is such an icon, such a sacred cow of the left?

I want to put money towards as many clinics helping as many people as possible. PP has a national presence and their methods are proven to work. I see no reason to exclude them from the area.

Because taxpayers deserve the biggest bang for their buck and giving it to a group because it is a sacred cow does not achieve that goal.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The outbreak is related to intravenous drug use, not a lack of Planned Parenthood. Heroine is a super big issue right now in this area.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... how stupid do you have to be in this country to NOT know how to avoid HIV/AIDS?

I mean really. Don't share your blood. That means no sex, no shared needles, no HIV/AIDS.

But, ZOMG, without the government ...



I remember the early days, man, when you at least pretended to be a libertarian ...

As a libertarian, you should be preaching personal responsibility.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Because taxpayers deserve the biggest bang for their buck and giving it to a group because it is a sacred cow does not achieve that goal.

You are right. Taxpayers DO deserve the biggest bang for their buck. So if it is cheaper and more effective to help them out on the front end than not helping them out and letting them fall into our prisons or come down with severe health complications that put much strain on our health care system, wouldn't it make sense to go for the former of the two options?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Something a little less dramatic. I don't know the answer to that question though. I do know MY idea would not involve hurting anyone in any way so please stop trying to insinuate that because I don't agree with you, that must be my idea. What your insinuating is bull and I am offended by it. NOBODY in their right mind is for anything remotely close to that. Its disgusting.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Because taxpayers deserve the biggest bang for their buck and giving it to a group because it is a sacred cow does not achieve that goal.

You are right. Taxpayers DO deserve the biggest bang for their buck. So if it is cheaper and more effective to help them out on the front end than not helping them out and letting them fall into our prisons or come down with severe health complications that put much strain on our health care system, wouldn't it make sense to go for the former of the two options?

No.

What would make sense is to stop publically funding things with our tax dollars that we have no business funding. However, if Indiana wants to fund something at their state level, let 'em. It's how things originally were. Don't you know that, libertarian?

Or maybe I should start referring to you as a liberaltarian. You're only libertarian when it comes to drug laws and libertinism, but when it comes to the rest, you have your hand out for the government cheese same as any other leftist.

a reply to: ketsuko

What may seem like common sense to you or I may not be so of the poor and undereducated. Don't assume that everyone knows the same certainties that you do.

a reply to: Digital_Reality

But those are really the only options available. Help them out with clinics like Planned Parenthood or ignore them until they end up in our jail system or health care system with a serious ailment. If you have a third option that is not only cost effective, but actually helpful, I'm all ears but I can't think of one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Digital_Reality

How would you help them? Put them in jail?

By the way, here is a break down of the services Planned Parenthood provides.
www.plannedparenthood.org...
I find it a TOUGH argument to argue that all of those services are evil.

I know you find it tough. I really do. But I believe in my heart, if they as an organization end just one tiny tiny life of any kind for any reason they are not trying to save people. They are hurting them. This is a personal feeling. I don't care if its one office in the remote wilds of Alaska where they had a really really good reason. It ruins their credibility completely for me.

Maybe in your mind its OK to do one horribly bad thing as long as you do 10 other good things to make up for it. I cannot go with that rational in this case.

originally posted by: ketsuko
No.

What would make sense is to stop publically funding things with our tax dollars that we have no business funding. However, if Indiana wants to fund something at their state level, let 'em. It's how things originally were. Don't you know that, libertarian?

Uh... This entire conversation is about Indiana cutting funding to PP. It has nothing to do with Federal funding of PP.

Or maybe I should start referring to you as a liberaltarian. You're only libertarian when it comes to drug laws and libertinism, but when it comes to the rest, you have your hand out for the government cheese same as any other leftist.

That's a low blow...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The outbreak is related to intravenous drug use, not a lack of Planned Parenthood. Heroine is a super big issue right now in this area.

And the connecting link brought forward is a lack of free HIV testing. Needle exchanges are just another part of the toolkit, but no, do not relate to PP. No one is debating whether or not IV drug use, sharing needle and unprotected sex are stupid. We all agree on that point. But that, by itself, gets us nowhere. On a business case alone, these harm reduction efforts are cheaper than dealing with the full range of diseases that can result from doing nothing.

And I don't think you're gonna find anyone who decided to to hit meth or junk because, hey, the HIV tests and fits are free!